Category Archives: Q & A

Barebow, Barebow, Barebow

I just got an email from a viewer who had a boatload of questions about Barebow. (Hooray!) I love it when you send in your questions as it gives me ideas about what I should write about, so if you have them, please feel free to email them to me (ruis.steve@gmail.com).

Here’s Dieter’s questions:
So, the questions are:
• Does one have to close one eye when aiming off the point?
• My kind of split vision string- and face walking does work. However, did you come across someone who managed to combine the more “instinctive” split vision technique with aiming off the point brought right below the target without having to drastically alter button spring tension?
• Of course, I could decide for either technique. The benefit of split vision from 5 – 25 meters is, I do not need to crawl down the string and thus do not imbalance the bow. The other thing is losing accuracy on longer distances. I might also improve the closer distances aiming off the point.
• Maybe, my little problem is confusing. However, I’d be glad if you could share your experienced thoughts with me.
Best wishes, Dieter

* * *

And here are my attempts at answers! (Note I assume Dieter is referring to Barebow Recurve.)

  • Does one have to close one eye when aiming off the point?
    My opinion is that this is only necessary if there is a problem with keeping the off eye open. I, for example, shoot right-handed but am left-eye dominant. If I don’t half shut my off eye, I can end up with some bad misses. There are problems with shutting the eye completely (as with an “eye patch”) as this lowers the total amount of light coming into the eyes and therefore affects iris responses, etc. Eyelids allow some light it and people with glasses often resort to putting a strip of transparent tape over the off eye lens. This allows light in to an open eye but no clear image, so if the off eye “takes over” it will be easily noticed.
    This is the same whether you are aiming off the point and or using a sight.
  • … did you come across someone who managed to combine the more “instinctive” split vision technique with aiming off the point brought right below the target without having to drastically alter button spring tension? This is a very complex question. The “split vision” technique, as recommended by the likes of Howard Hill, is not really split vision as much as it is split attention. I am not a fan because while you are aiming that is the only time you are splitting your attention on what you are doing during an archery shot: you are attending to aiming and attending to completing the shot via swinging the draw elbow around, squeezing back muscles, or whatever. Splitting your aiming attention in two results in a three-way split in attention, something I am not a fan of. But then, I am a fan of whatever works, as long as we know what actually works, so if the “split vision technique really works for you, then go for it. (That you asked the question indicates it is not working well enough or under the circumstances you encounter.)
    Two topics are being addressed here in addition. One can aim off of the point several ways. The two primary ways are gap shooting (basically aiming off, with “gaps” being the amount of high or low aiming) and stringwalking. Since the grip of bow and sting do not vary when gap shooting, no adjustment of plunger tension is needed. However, when string walking, whenever the “crawl” (the distance down from the arrow the string is “gripped”) is changed, you are essentially de-tuning the bow. The draw length changes, the draw weight changes, the tiller changes, everything. These changes are small and successful Barebow Recurve stringwalkers focus heavily in finding a bow tune that represents a “happy medium compromise.” Usually, since the shorter distances are shorter and therefore easier (in field archery) they allow for a poorer tune there and set up for a better tune for the longer, and therefore harder, shots.

    Taking a crawl on a longbow.

    So, elite Barebow Recurve Archers who stringwalk have this unavoidable dilemma. Some use plunger adjustments at the extremes of their distances to help with this problem, so you are not wrong in doing that. The ultimate tune, though, for such an archer is one that doesn’t involve such adjustments, so these archers work on their arrows obsessively and their plungers to find a “no fiddling tune” if they can. If such plunger adjustments are required, you need to adjust your shot sequence to make sure that you add or subtract known numbers of turns on your plunger button and then take them off when no longer needed. Forgetting to do these things are mental mistakes that always lower scores, so eliminating the need to make such adjustments reduces the number of possible mental mistakes, which is a good thing … if you can pull it off.
    Sorry, for being so long winded on this one, but that’s the best I can do. Possibly more expert Barebow archers will chime in in the Comments.

  • Of course, I could decide for either technique. Yes, you can. There are some who insist that this technique is better than that technique. I have never seen a case in which this has been proven, unless you put up some form of standard technique against, say, standing with your back to the target. The entire reason we all shoot much the same way, with only minor differences, is that in the 60,000–70,000 year history of archery, the bow has taught us what works and what doesn’t. So, most of what you can find being currently recommended by archers and coaches works! That’s the good news. The bad news is “so does all of the other stuff.”And the only way you can tell “what works for you” is to try things out. Unfortunately, the things being tested against one another are so similar (they may feel really different, but they are not … to the point that onlookers may not notice that you have changed anything) that it takes many weeks of trying out the new thing to see if there is a real effect or not. There are very many things to try, and not enough time and effort to try them all, so you just have to pick.

    What I do know is this: the key factors are whether an archer has committed to a new/different technique and practiced it in and … in my not so humble opinion … simpler is better. If you try an aiming technique and it only works for shorter distances and you need another for longer distances, I would keep looking. What you want is a technique that is the same for all shots you take on a certain course, e.g. WA Field Unmarked shots are never longer than 50 m, WA target shots used to be longer (30-90 m for men) but now seem to have been shrunk down to just 50 m for target events. I would have separate bows set up for the two kinds of events. If I couldn’t afford two bows, I would have two bowstrings and two sets of bow settings for the two events. I might also, depending on budget, have two sets of arrows tuned for two different events. (Consider archer’s arrow choices for indoor and outdoor events as a model.) The gold standard for FITA Field Barebow archers shooting unmarked targets is a single anchor with a single set of crawls from 50 m on down to the shortest shot (don’t remember this … 5 m?).

    I prefer having a single technique for a single event. When I teach stringwalking, we start at close up, determining the archers point on target distance (POT) and then determining their set of crawls for distances inside that distance. Then we change from a high anchor to a low anchor and determine the new POT for that anchor (much farther out) and a set of crawls there, too. (Often the crawls are amazingly consistent, e.g. the same crawl for five meters closer than POT distance for both anchors, which makes memory mistakes less likely). What we hope is these two ranges overlap, covering all of the distances being shot. If they do not, instead of adding a third technique, we look to changing things like draw weight or slight changes in anchor hand position to get what is desired.

My rule of simplicity would rule out string walking as a tool for tackling a FITA Round, for example. There were/are only four distances. It is far easier to determine four points of aim for the four distances (if they are on target) than employ stringwalking with its detuning characteristics. But for a Field Round in which targets are placed at many different distances, having a different point of aim for each target is too cumbersome, there stringwalking shines. So, there are legitimate reasons for having a “bag of tricks” to employ for aiming at various kinds of events as “one size never fits all!”

I hope this helps more than it hinders!

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

To Pre-Draw or Not to Pre-Draw, That Is the Question

I sent a video link showing Darrel Pace and Rick McKinney shooting at the 1984 Olympics (Los Angeles) to a Recurve student of mine who is working on speeding up his draw. He is quite an astute student who wrote back immediately with these questions:

Hi Steve,
Thanks. I note that Pace is only a few inches from his face at a pre-draw, at 5:35 in the video. Also he goes from this position to a couple of inches under chin/jaw before back up to anchor. Lots of movements going on. What’s the benefit to drawing below the chin/jaw and then up into the anchor? I’m aware I draw pretty much straight to my face. I remember the summer evening archery lessons where I was taught to do this. Along with T shape, square stance, tuck my chin down (something we had to undo).
Cheers

And here is my response (somewhat augmented as I had a chance to think more deeply).

* * *

In American-style Archery (my term), you pretty much draw to anchor (with stops along the way). In is Kisik Lee’s teaching that you draw to 1+˝ below the chin and come up. I believe he claims it helps to set the rear shoulder/facilitate “loading” … I am unclear on this. (Have you read the USAA book “Archery?” This is the cheapest book covering Coach Lee’s teachings, also called the NTS or National Training System. I wish they had called it the National Teaching System because I don’t see training mentioned much.)

In Coach Lee’s description, you draw exactly that low until the string touches the corner of your chin, then you come up. This practice does give you a draw length indicator (if your head position doesn’t move, if …).

I found the whole “pre-draw” idea puzzling because everybody did it a different way. (I have written about this: “The Pre-Draw Redux” in AF 10-1) The first formal Instructor’s Manual of the NAA (now USAA) does not mention a pre-draw. I think it is a rather recent invention. Since starting and stopping muscle contractions results in more variation in muscle tension and therefore feel, I suggest we do away with it all together. (As an analysis tool, I always suggest you think about what if you carried it to an extreme: what if you stopped 5X or 10X on the way to anchor? If 1X is good, … ?) That stop may be being used to do something else, as I indicated, but does doing that require a stop? I don’t know.

In KSL’s technique, the “Set Up” element eliminates the pre-draw by skipping over it … or you could say he institutes it as being required as the final body position of the Set Up phase. I would like to find out what was happening elsewhere physically and mentally during a pre-draw as you have noted. It might have just been copied from the way others shot and then used as a point or marker in time/space in which other things are done, such as positioning the sight aperture, checking string alignment, etc.

Please realize that McKinney had his dad as a coach and Darrel basically didn’t have one (he did grill everyone he ran into, though). Modern coaching of archery hadn’t been invented yet. (I am not sure it has even now.)

PS Tucking your chin down is something you do (mildly) to use a high anchor. You do the opposite for a low anchor. So, if you were being taught to shoot with a high anchor, they were right. This is an ongoing problem with archery instruction. What is said specifically is generalized. Coaches need to do a better job of pointing these things out.

A Bald Face Plug
In this post I referred to an article in a back issue of Archery Focus magazine. If you are not subscribing, you are really missing out as you get complete access to all of the back issues when you subscribe. That’s thousands of articles written to make you a better archer and coach. You can get it here: www.archeryfocus.com. Here’s the cover of the latest issue:

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Apertures: Pin or No Pin?

I got a question from Carole, who asked: “What are your thoughts on using a sight with a pin in the center (recurve sight) compared to one without a pin, just a tunnel? I have read that the human brain is excellent at centering a circle and wondered if it would be more ‘natural’ to allow the brain to center the sight on the gold and therefore more relaxed on the eye?  I have used both and (think) I prefer without the pin, but am interested in your opinion.”

* * *

Okay, here’s my opinion. I think the jury is still out on this one, so I would call it a matter of personal preference at this point. By all means, do try both types, noting how each affects your sighting (mentally as well as physically).

The same question comes up on the compound side in the form of having a central pin (usually fiber optic) or just an applied ring on one’s scope lens. (There are commercial sets of decals for application to the scope surface with various thickness and colors of loops.)

The orange ring is to make the scope housing more visible (it is centered in the peep hole to collimate the aim). My preference is for a thicker loop a bit larger than the decal shown here and bright green in color (see text).

My thinking at this point (remember this is premature as we have almost no real information on this topic, just opinions) is it depends on the kind of person you are. Using me as an example: I am a bit easily distracted, a bit shaky, and a bit nervous. I find the loops preferable for the following reasons: a small pin looks more jittery than a larger loop, which leads me to press to try to be more steady, which makes my steadiness worse, not better. One must relax into a clam state of steadiness, not “try.”

I use a bright green, thick, fairly large loop decal on my compound scopes. Green is not a color that shows up on target faces much so a good deal of contrast is there. The thicker loop makes it easier to see, the larger loop avoids a problem with small loops, namely that as target sizes change with distance, if you have a small loop, you can be floating around in the middle not knowing where you are. Take a Metric of American 900 Round. At 30 yards/meters, a small loop may only show you gold on the 122 cm multi-color target. So, where in the gold are you? Do you look for the dividing line between the 10-and 9-rings? Do you move around, looking for the edge? Similarly, if the entire gold, or center spot whatever the color, barely fits inside the loop, there is a tendency to try to fit it exactly which leads to over focusing on aiming too precise to sustain.

A large loop allows several rings or a smaller central spot to float in the middle of the loop using the brain’s automatic centering function to your benefit. (This function is hardwired into our brains. It is used for distance estimation and other functions and it is normal for most all people.)

Here’s a scope with a fiber optic dot in the middle.

On the recurve size, I prefer a larger loop than the commercially available ones that seem a bit small to me. (They are easy enough to make and I also paint the front edge bright green.)

So, when you try these options, in the back of your mind (that’s a metaphor, not literal suggestion) keep track of whether your aperture helps you to feel calm. In my case, the thick green ring helps me locate the loop in my visual field easily, in all lighting conditions, shows little perceived motion when aiming which provides a perception of steadiness, which then leads to relaxing a somewhat jumpy archer. If you, on the other hand, are rock steady, mentally calm person, you may find a pin easiest to line up with your point of aim.

The famous Beiter Sight Tunnel offers a square housing (to supply visual cues as to whether the recurve bow is being held vertically, and a plethora of “pins” inside the housing … or you can just use no insert for a circular opening.

It doesn’t hurt to try a number of variations to see what works best for you. Pin, no pin. Small loop, big loop. Different colors of loops. This doesn’t all have to happen at once (unless you are hyper-competitive), but over time, these are things to “give a try” at.

PS This is also wrapped up in another discussion: should you be looking at the bow sights aperture or the target. Both will not be in focus at the same time. That question is for another time.

2 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Line Control for and Coaching the Hearing Impaired

I got a question in the form of a comment on a previous post and because I don’t think you spend a lot of time going back to previous posts and reading the comments, I decided to make a post on just that question. The question was “What about deaf/hearing impaired archery? I’ve received inquiries from a deaf potential archer, and I have no idea how to deal with things like line safety (can’t hear whistles or “clear” calls) and communication during coaching. Are there any resources that I can use to help here?”

* * *

The only thing I have heard is the use of flags instead of whistles. The timekeeper stands at the end of the line and raises a green flag to begin shooting. With 30 seconds left to go, a yellow flag is waived. At the end of the end a red flag is waived. I bought a string of decorative plastic pennants on eBay (see photo), cut the triangular flags off and collected the green, yellow and red ones. These can be taped to an old arrow to make quite a good set of flags for this purpose.

They may be cheesy, but they are also cheap. (Hey, that’s important to me.)

If there are left-handed archers, you will need a “flag person” at each end of the line to be perfectly fair.

I have not heard of any other accommodation although there are timing systems that use colored lights (from computer screens to reused traffic lights) that are used in competitions. That, of course, does not help in practice situations if you do not have such a system.

With regard to coaching, the only thing I could think of is that they would have to bring someone along who could sign the conversations needed. Lip reading is a possibility, but the hearing impaired also can have a problem with speaking.

There are resources on the Internet. Here is one: http://www.archerygb.org/images/content/Hearing-impairment-factsheet.pdf

 

6 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Using NTS for Barebow Recurve

I received an email from a reader with an interesting question:

“I was reading your blog archive on Barebow Recurve and there is a topic that would be good to address – using NTS for Barebow Recurve. I shoot Barebow Recurve and attempt to use and teach NTS, finding that it can mostly be followed except for the anchor point. What has been your experience?”

And here is my answer …

* * *

To teach NTS or not, that is the question. (Everyone trolls Shakespeare!)

The question asks whether NTS would be appropriate for Barebow Recurve. The question, though, is not a simple one, or rather the answer is not simple.

The NTS or U.S. National Training System is misnamed as it is not a system, but a shooting technique. I think technique is very important; every archer should have one. The NTS is a technique designed for elite target archers. So, the first thing I would want to know are what are the goals of the archer. If they are a recreational archer, my answer would be no. If they were a competitive archery, but not a really serious one, the answer would also be no. If they were a serious competitive archer or asked to be taught the technique, then I would teach them, but only so long as they were making progress.

To learn any elite sport technique requires a great deal of practice, so there is a substantial commitment of time and energy necessary to even make the attempt to learn it. If that isn’t what is being committed to, why start such a task?

Secondly, I have to ask something else. Are you a Barebow Recurve archer with a primary interest in Field Archery? The NTS is designed to be shot on a flat target field. Field archers are shooting uphill, downhill, and on sidehills. The NTS focuses on a clicker to control draw length, whereas Field Archers do not get to use a clicker and even if they did, stringwalking, the most common sighting technique, would require a different clicker setting for each crawl, so it is quite impractical.

Think of cars. A Ferrari is a really cool marque. But if you needed a vehicle to haul trash to the dump, would that be your choice? Would you take a cement truck to a NASCAR race? My point is the technique chosen has to be mated to the archery “game” being attempted.

NTS is not well mated to FITA Field, plus Barebow Recurve target archery (on a flat field) is not seriously undertaken outdoors much anymore (indoors, yes). Note Barebow was in serious decline is now making a comeback, of which I heartily approve.

I wrote an article once that compared the NTS (then called the BEST method) with the best available compound technique. I found that about 40% of NTS overlapped with elite compound technique, yet I heard many people saying that the NTS should be undertaken by compound archers. In my opinion, that would have been a mistake. Those recommendations were just manifestations of enthusiasm, not well thought out points.

The technique employed has to be designed around the archery game/style to be engaged and equipment desired.

Note BTW, a Compound NTS has been drafted but not widely publicized yet. I hope to have articles on it in Archery Focus soon.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Recurve Barebow Shots Up- and Downhill (Part 2)

This topic is burgeoning. I got an email from another Barebow Recurve archer on a similar topic while writing the last post and there are quite a few loose ends that still need to be tied up here. Also, since I pointed out that the cut chart I included in the last post was a “simplified one” somebody just had to see one that wasn’t simplified. So, let’s get that out of the way right now.

This chart includes the fact that on downhill shots, gravity is accelerating the arrows making their arcs flatter and on uphill shots gravity is decelerating the arrows making their arcs more pronounced. For example: a 50 m shot at an angle of 35° uphill would be shot as if it were a 42.3 m shot but if that angle were downhill it would shot as if it were 39.8 m. Note A 35 degree shot is quite extreme by American standards but not so much by European standards. (Europeans like shots you have to tie a rope around your waist so you don’t fall off of the cliff as you shoot from it.) The “simplified chart” has this shot at 41 m which would be a 1 m error either way, not a lot to worry about.

Note that the two charts are arranged differently: one has degrees vertically, the other horizontally. If you thought I would remake one of these for consistencies sake a blog that doesn’t make me a dime, you need to think again.

Onward and Upward
Stringwalking in Barebow makes things different, but the physics of gravity isn’t one of the differences. The simplified cut chart gives a reasonable number for the crawl setting for an “angled” shot. Using the example above, a 50 m shot at a 35° angle (uphill or downhill) should be attempted with whatever anchor and crawl you would use for a 41 m shot.

This is a starting point! You really need to check these things out. For one, when you take a crawl, you are detuning your bow substantially. Different crawls represent different tunes, in effect. This is why tuning for Barebow is different from tuning for Olympic recurve. Even using a “three fingers under” string grip requires a different tiller setting than the more typical Mediterranean string grip (one over, two under).

The more extensive chart is not needed unless your groups compare to those of Compound Unlimited archers, but those “cut distances” need to be checked. (Do I need to say it again?) The second reason they need to be checked carefully is anything greater than a very shallow angle for a shot can distort the archer’s form resulting in quite varied results (depending on the amount of distortion).

There are a number of compensations that Barebow Recurve archers make for these shots. One of those is to open their stance greatly for downhill shots and close them greatly for uphill shots. The open/downhill posture makes room for the bottom limb to go between the legs, instead of hitting the forward leg if a square stance were employed. Opening your stance shortens your draw length which actually helps with those downhill shots (shorter draws make arrows fall “short” which is what we want), but they also make shots more variable and, hence, more difficult. The ideal is keeping your upper body geometry consistent from shot to shot, but this is virtually impossible at higher angles of launch. The net effect of this distortion of the full draw position is to shorten the draw. By using a very closed stance on those difficult uphill shots, the closed stance lengthens the draw to compensate for the draw shortening described above, making the archer more consistent. (If you do not understand this effect, take a very light drawing bow and at full draw tilt up- and downhill and see what happens to your draw length. (You may need a helper to watch your arrow point or set up a video camera.) Hold the arrow level, again at full draw, and swing left and right (in effect changing to open and closed stances). (Go as far as you can.) Do these things, see what happens, they are more explicative than any thousand words you could read!

3 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Recurve Barebow Shots Up- and Downhill (Part 1 … )

I got an email from a colleague regarding how to deal with shots that are up- and downhill whilst shooting Recurve Barebow. Here is the question:

“I have a question for you. The standard “cut charts” for distances and shot angles used in field archery are based on the mathematical computation of measuring the hypotenuse of a triangle but shooting a level distance (the long leg of the triangle).
“However, these charts don’t work for me because I shoot a wimpy bow with that produces very slow fps arrows (aka slow). Once I go beyond my POT distance (35m), I am shooting an arc, not a straight line. So I end up ADDING rather than cutting the distances.
“Can you or your stable of experts address this in Archery Focus? Is there a mathematical formula I can use? Trial and error (mostly errors) is costing me a lot of arrows…

And here is my convoluted answer and some of the “back and forth” conversation that followed:

* * *

Note The phrase “Once I go beyond my POT (point-on-target) distance (35m) … I end up adding rather than cutting the distances.” made me suspicious that the archer in question used a gap shooting technique beyond her “point on” which would hopelessly complicate the situation. But being fearless, I just plowed on!

Arrows never fly in a straight line; all arrows travel in an arc (technically it is a “decaying parabola”). Some arcs are just shallower than others in that higher arrow speeds produce flatter arcs. This is simply a manifestation of the fact that when you shoot on the level, gravity is acting only downwards (sideways) on your arrow and this fact forms part of the explanation regarding how to adjust for up- and downhill shots. When you shoot up- and down hill, only part of the force of gravity works as it does on the level, and part of it is applied to make the arrow go faster or slower. Think of arrows going straight up or down, Under those conditions gravity doesn’t bend the trajectory of the arrow into an arc at all. Since only part of the gravitational force is making the arrow bent on an angled shot, you need to plan on a sight setting for part of the distance being shot. Here is a standard “cut chart” used for figuring out the horizontal distances to the target (corresponds to the part that gravity is acting sideways to the trajectory).

This is a simplified chart that ignores the arrow slowing and speeding up effects of gravity. Angles are down the left side, distances across the top. A 50 m shot at 35 degrees is basically only a 41 m shot according to this chart.

If you were shooting with a sight, a program like Archer’s Advantage can calculate all of your sight marks for whatever angle you shoot. Since you aren’t using a sight, this gets complicated.

Have you ever seen a “sight tape”? Just in case, I attached a photo. The strips at the bottom of the printout are cut out and attached to the sight bar. You can see from the markings that the spacings get wider as you go to longer and longer distances. Look at the difference between 60 and 70 yards as compare to between 20 and 30 yards.

When one graphs out crawls, though, one gets a straight line relationship between distance and length of crawl. In other words, the difference between any two identical distances is the same amount of crawl.

Now, given that there is that built in distance, you are going to have to do a little gymnastics here.

Once you get to your POT distance, do you shoot off the shelf, aim high, or lower your anchor? (From your question I suspect that you just aim high for distances beyond your POT, a form of gap shooting. This makes things incredibly difficult, though. For the approach I am thinking of, it is better to go to a lower anchor.

The ideal situation (if using multiple anchors) is to have a low anchor (for long distances) and a high anchor (for shorter distances) and a set of crawls for each (actually the crawls for both anchors will be very similar in that the crawl for 5 m/yd less than POT will be roughly the same for both anchors). When you start to shoot up- and down hills, you would use the anchor for the target distance, but you would take a slightly greater crawl (taking a crawl for a closer target). What your cuts will be are roughly the distance calculated as the cosine of the angle of the shot. (This is straight physics and geometry.)

And, as you know, your bow isn’t gonna be anywhere near ideal for all of the assumptions made. So, you are going to have to do some experimentation. (Do you have an angle finder?)

* * *

To which the questioner responded:

“Wow, my head is spinning.

“Yes, I had already figured out through experience that there is a direct relationship between distance and length of crawl.
“This year, once I get to POT, I start using the plunger and rest plate for sighting points.  Last year I did different combinations of face walking and string walking and it was too much for me to remember on the FITA Barebow courses, which don’t allow written memoranda.  I also had a lot of trouble getting a replicable anchor once I dropped below my upper teeth, because how much tension I had in my lower jaw varied all over the place.
“The other thing I am wondering about is the arrow trajectory and its impact on crawls past POT or at least the zenith of the shot.  I don’t think my arrows travel in a nice curve, instead they go upwards most of the way and then drop steeply at the end.  I am planning to play around with walk-back shooting to see if I can figure this out, and whether or not it matters.
“What does the last column of your attachment mean? For less than 10m, because I don’t want to crawl anymore, I just aim off a little.

* * *

That’s for people with sights.

When you say “I am wondering about the arrow trajectory and its impact on crawls past POT” you are making me wonder because to go past your POT, there is no crawl. You either aim off (gap shoot) or switch to a lower anchor and crawl down from your new POT.

The system I recommend now is to use the most comfortable anchor you have (this is usually the finger in the corner of the mouth version of a “high anchor”) and figure out your POT(High Anchor) distance and then all of your crawls down (inward) from there. Then, to deal with distances past your POT(High Anchor), you adopt a different, lower anchor (usually the Olympic-style anchor) and find your new POT, the POT (Low Anchor), then you figure out your crawls down from there. If … if … those two series overlap, you are generally good to go.

This has the “feature” that the crawls for the two anchors are generally very close, so five yards inside both the POT(High Anchor) and the POT(Low Anchor) are about the same crawl (why I do not know), so this reduces the amount of memorization.

If there is a gap between the two sets of crawls, we try to bridge that by aiming high off of the POT(High Anchor). All this requires you to know, if there is say a five yard gap between the two series, is what a shot lands at five yard past your POT distance with a zero crawl. If your arrow lands five rings low under those circumstances, then you need to aim one ring high for every yard you are past your POT. (I picked those numbers for simplicity, of course, your situation will be much more complicated (much). ;o)

Every anchor has its own POT distance. And there are all kinds of anchors to chose (you have tried face walking you tell me). The FITA Field experts work like crazy to get a POT of 50 m which is their longest shot (for the unmarked). So they have one set of crawls for the entire course. So, your trepidation was certainly shared by others!

And we have yet to get to the crux of the aiming up and down hills issue.

PS When you shoot with a sight, there is a point in space where the arrow rises up from its position below the line of sight to the line of sight. Typically for me that was around 11 or 12 yards out. (If you check one of those sight tapes I sent you, the tape stops at that point as there are no more markings that mean anything.) When targets are inside of that distance, you have to set your sight for an even higher distance to work. For example, I often set my sight for 52 yards for a 4-yard shot. The arrow is still rising to the line of sight the aperture is in, so the aperture has to be set much higher to get the bow low enough to hit anything. That is what those boldface numbers are on the right side of the AA printout, shooting targets inside your crossover distance.

There is so much more to this discussion, I will follow-up with another post.

 

 

 

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Why Did I Make That Change?

Every archer I know says the same thing. Basically they say “my <widget> was working perfectly, I don’t know why I changed to something else?” This thought was prompted by an author who was working on an article about compound bow launcher arrow rests. He said: “Goodness, there a lot of options on launcher style arrow rests! I was digging in my junk drawers and kept finding other types and styles. They all worked but with a few exceptions, I don’t recall why I stopped using them.”

We then told several stories back and forth, because that’s what archer’s do. But, of course, I couldn’t leave it there. I have to add …

* * *

We all succumb to the “new, improved” sales pitch which appeals to the magical thinking of archers. (Better scores are available here, just step through this door!) This reminds me of the story of P.T. Barnum solving the problem he had of getting people out of his exhibits so he could fit more paying customers in. He put up a sign that said “This Way to the Egress” over the exit. People flooded through, ending up outside.

We keep going through the door labeled “This Way to Higher Scores” based upon buying something. This is a form of magical thinking as we cannot supply any reasonable reason for why a new stabilizer or arrow rest will actually improve our scores, but it is only $59.99 and it sure looks cool!

I was just watching a video of Darrell Pace and Rick McKinney shooting in the 1984 Olympics. They had wood-fiberglass limbs, aluminum arrows, Dacron bow strings, flat V-bars with steel rod sidebars with simple weights on their ends. No Doinkers or other vibration dampeners in sight. Almost 35 years later, how many Americans do you think are shooting as well as those two guys? (Pace averaged 1308 in two FITA Rounds in quite breezy conditions.) Maybe a handful at best. Gee, I wonder how they did it? It was probably that they had the best archery equipment! (Not!)

The still brilliant Rick McKinney is one of the few elite archers who has written a serious archery book.

Currently my thinking on any equipment change is: “any reasonable piece of kit is fine, but learn how to get the most out of it.” And, “if you feel a change is going to be profitable, prove it.” I have made a number of equipment changes in my life that really produced better results. One was changing from a 20+ year old bow to a six-year old one. Another was a change of stabilizers (to one that was much better in the wind). Other than that, there was little difference in my scores based upon equipment changes. In one case, I bought my first brand new bow and my scores dropped. (A year later a professional archer told me that none of the pros had ever got that model to shoot well. That bow model lasted just one year, possibly because of the feedback from sponsored archers.)

I am not saying, don’t bother changing your equipment. I am saying research it well. When you make the change, find the best setup for that thing and then prove to yourself that something is indeed better. (I recommend practice score benchmarks.) If your performance is the same or worse, you wasted some money. If it is the same, you can go ahead and keep the change as no harm was done. If it is worse, change back immediately to your old setup and give that piece of new junk you bought to a rival.

 

2 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

Breaking News! Archery is Counterintuitive!

I got the following email from my best student this morning:
“Okay coach, explain this one to me. Increasing my bow weight seems to make my arrows shoot more to the left. Compounding my confusion is that tonight I got the groups to move back to the right by tightening my plunger. Count me confused and dazed!
Cheers

If this has never happened to you, you haven’t been in archery very long. The student in question shoots Olympic Recurve, so you have that as background. Here is what I answered, expanded for this post).

* * *

A bow is a closed system, when you change one part, many others are affected. (Memorize this!)

You got two counterintuitive responses to things you did. The problem is that ceteras parabus was nowhere to be seen. (Ceteras parabus is the principle that “everything else was the same.”) When you make a single change to a bow, you make other changes, too … always! There is no such thing as “everything else was the same” when working with bows.

For example, you increased your draw weight. I do not know how much but it was not a fraction of a pound is my guess. When you screw in the limb bolts, you change the angle of the limbs to the bow (making the limbs more upright as it were). This results in a lower brace height. (Plus more tension on the string at brace, plus …) The brace height is one of the determinants of the point in space at which your arrow’s nocks separate from your string at the end of the power stroke. Since the string’s path toward the riser is a flattish “S curve,” the change in the point of separation of the string and nock is complex. If the nock comes off more to the right from where it did previously, the arrow ends up pointed more to the left (the point has enough inertia that it doesn’t move as much as the nock end). If the nock comes off more to the left, the arrow will be pointed more to the right. (Think about it.) I have also to point out that when the arrow separates from the string it is no longer touching the arrow rest.

“Coaches need to expect counterintuitive responses to equipment changes.”

When you change the bow’s draw weight, you are also changing the efficiency of the bow due to a spine match or mismatch. I think I told you about the compound archer who lowered his draw weight (just a half turn on each limb) only to have his arrows hit higher on the target. What happened when he lowered the draw weight,  he created a better spine match (arrow to bow), which created a more efficient transfer of energy from bow to arrow which made up for the energy loss from the change in draw weight and more. These are the kinds of counterintuitive things that can happen.

If we had created a perfect spine match for your bow before (unlikely, such things take a great deal of time and effort), we no longer have that spine match. When you finish your draw weight changes, a complete re-tune is necessary because so many things have changed.

If you think the string goes straight toward the riser, think again. (Yeah, this is a stringwalking Barebow archer, but I get to exaggerate for emphasis, don’t I?)

A general consequence of this situation (reality actually) is coaches need to expect counterintuitive responses to equipment changes. This is because of the reasons stated and because what you were taught were often oversimplified rules of thumb. For example, “weak arrows fly to the right, stiff arrows fly to the left.” and “If you lower the nocking point, you will raise the hit point of the arrow on the target.” (All of these are for right-handed archers.)

These equipment aphorisms were intended to get you down the road until you could think through such problems without needing them. From a perfectly tuned bow, if the nocking point is lowered a slight amount, the arrow will hit on the target lower than it did previously. But if you lower the nocking point enough, the rear of the arrow will start hitting the rest or arrow shelf and where those arrows land is anybodies guess.

All of those pithy little rules need to be taken with a grain of salt. And, they need to be thought through as they are all true … up to a point. By thinking them through they provide an entry to better understanding of archery equipment. If you do not, they become unreliable crutches. (I am speaking from experience here. If I had a nickel for every mistake I made, I could have retired earlier.)

6 Comments

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A

What are the Advantages of Having a Heavier Bow, Like 50lb Compared to 30lb?

The question in the title comprised the entire question asked. There are advantages and disadvantages to all of these considerations and such considerations also depend upon application. You didn’t say what your particular application is, so that makes any answer I provide longer. (If you want short, pithy answers, ask detailed questions. ;o)

For example, if you are a bowhunter, most hunting regulations specify a minimum draw weight for hunting, typically 40# or so. Thus, a 30 pound bow would be illegal to use, a major disadvantage.

In general, hunters prefer higher draw weights and target archers lower draw weights. (As with all such broad statements there are many exceptions.) The reason for this difference is that a target archer may have to shoot one hundred or more shots in a single day but a hunter merely a handful. For some reason, a compound bow peak weight of 70# has proved popular for deer hunters. This is excessive as these bows will drive an arrow through the body of a deer, the most common large game animal in the U.S., and out the other side (still traveling at high speed). Possibly this very high draw weight is due to manhood issues amongst the bow purchasers or is possibly just a manifestation of hunters buying whatever everyone else has.

Whew, 53#! Just whew!

Olympic Recurve archer Brady Ellison shoots a very high 53# bow setup and is doing very well for himself. Most everyone else is shooting a lower draw weight, the women being typically about 10# lower.

In general and for target archers:

Positives of a Higher Draw Weight for Target Archers
A higher draw weight produces a crisper release of the string. (The string supplies the force to move the string out of the way and the more force available, the straighter the path of the string.)
A higher draw weight produces a flatter arrow trajectory. (This allows an archer to stay closer to perfect form for longer shots, not requiring as much bow elevation.)

Negatives of a Higher Draw Weight for Target Archers
A higher draw weight produces more fatigue. (Drawing a 70# bow is the equivalent to exercising with a 70# weight. How many repetitions can you do and execute with the same form on your last shot as you had on your first?)
A higher draw weight produces more tension at full draw. (Even compound bows suffer from this effect: a 70# bow with 65% letoff still has 25# in hand at full draw. A higher “holding weight” shortens the amount of time an archer has available at full draw and stresses the full-draw form of the archer. Obviously a recurve or longbow archers has an even higher load at full draw.)

In the past, high draw weights were the only option to increase the power and cast of a bow. Many of the English bowmen of the past were shooting bows of 100#-125# of draw. But that was then and this is now. Now, lightweight and extremely stiff carbon arrows allow high arrow speeds to be produced at much, much lower draw weights.

So, unless you have aspirations of being a very, very serious target archer (one who trains many days a week) my recommendation is to consider the goal of finding the lowest draw weight bow that will allow you to shoot your last arrow in any set with the same form and execution as you had on your first. Higher draw weights than that require serious physical training to be successful (which can be achieved by shooting, but that means many days per week of shooting).

“My recommendation is to consider the goal of finding the lowest draw weight bow that will allow you to shoot your last arrow in any set with the same form and execution as you had on your first.”

The overwhelming popularity of compound bows in the U.S. is driven by the difference in peak weight and holding weight of those bows. Low holding weights lower strain on the archer at full draw and increase the time available to aim while providing high arrow speeds because of he high peak weights. But too high of a peak weight will wear a compound archer down in a longer competition, resulting in mistakes that cause point losses no one likes. The same is true for recurve and longbow archers.

Choose wisely. The worst thing that can happen to an archer is to be overbowed (too much draw weight) because it distorts form and literally sucks the fun out of shooting.

Leave a comment

Filed under For All Coaches, Q & A